I'm looking at buying a few new pairs of dress shoes and was wondering what brands to stay away from and what brands are good value at different price points. I'm also interested in what to look for to get an idea on how to tell what shoes are better quality. Also, what should I look for as far as shoes that can be repaired easily and a cost that is inexpensive. I'm hoping to keep the shoes for several years.

I'm looking to spend around $300-400 per pair but would go to around $750 for the right pair/brand if it offered a significant upgrade and was still good value at that price.

To give you an idea of the style/look I'm looking for I have included some examples.

For $3-400 the world is your oyster. AE are decent enough, and if you hit the sales and seconds you could probably get two pairs for that most of the time. For $400 you can look at Cheaney, Church's, some Alfred Sargeant, even Tricker's in the sale, or go cheaper with Barker or Loake for some impressive value. Easy international-friendly e-tailers are herringshoes.co.uk, pediwear.co.uk (I've used both), and shoehealer.co.uk. Also check out Vass (vass-cipo.hu) and Carmina (carminashoemaker.com) - read the respective threads - for incredible shoes in the $4-600 bracket. If you want to try and buy from within the US, Vass are now sold by nomanwalksalone.com and Carmina by epaulet.com - both NY-based affiliate vendors with links to your right.

As for your selection of styles, it seems pretty sensible: black captoes for never-wrong business dress, also works for evening and other more formal occasions. Brown/tan wingtips for a more casual suit look, but easy and stylish with jeans/chinos. As are double-monks, the favourite child of the i-gent generation. Although I don't love them, personally. An alternative might be a chukka boot with Dainite sole to have something more robust and casual, or perhaps a suede half-brogue that's smart enough for a sports jacket but laid back enough for jeans.

Perhaps it's a bit dogmatic, but I will say that I wear blue shirts much, much more often than white. Easily a 5:1 ratio of blue:white.

I wear blue and white with about the same frequency. Personal preference plays a role, but the justifications in that thread about how white shirts are just inherently inferior are just utterly preposterous.

the justifications in that thread about how white shirts are just inherently inferior are just utterly preposterous.

I see it as more of an overreaction.

Once upon a time, white was *the* dress shirt color. That was the rule.

Eventually, people came to realize that in some situations white was not the best choice. That pale blue sometimes had very real advantages.

But rather than using this new understanding properly, and accepting that while the white shirt still has its place, sometimes some other color choice could be preferable, the new rule became "white is a terrible shirt color and must always be avoided."

Because many people like simple rules. Absolute ones. Not "sometimes this, but sometimes that, and you have to judge on a case-by-case basis." They want certainty, without the need to understand underlying reasons. Because understanding underlying reasons is hard, and mindlessly applying an absolute rule is so much easier.

It's very much like the current notion, popular amongst some here on SF (and elsewhere), that black shoes are always a horrible choice. This too, is a reaction to the old rule that black was *the* shoe color to wear with a (typically grey or navy) suit. Now, instead of simply accepting that black is sometimes a good choice, but sometimes another color is preferable, there are men who take it as an article of faith that black shoes are as awful as white shirts, and must always be avoided.

Ultimately, style and good taste - much like art or justice - are not as simple as following a rule book. They're as much about exceptions, as they are about guidelines.